Of course suspending a little girl for an imaginary game is nuts--if that is the whole story. Would I expect the whole story from the parents' lawyer? No, but then I was trained in critical thinking.

On the other hand, a comment like this:

Quote:

a perfect example of how political correctness has gone off the deep end.

is always a complaint from the right wing. Without, claims mrgybe, political content, only a sincere attempt at humor. This from the man who sincerely values "junk science" and supports denial theorists. Such complaints about political correctness are generally followed by claims that we need corporal punishment, or prayer, or, lord help us, more "good guys with guns" in our schools.

So if you want to put your silly little stories, about the world that never was, and how it has all gone to hell because of those who, in our quest for political correctness want the other side of the story, expect the ridicule you deserve.

I could, of course, post twenty or thirty really stupid things that right-wing school administrators have tried to do to get prayer, or creationism, taught in school. But then you would complain that our efforts to get the Constitution respected, and science taught, are merely "political correctness."

techno900, in your search for overreaction to incidents, did it dawn on you that all of the 2012 response scenarios in your 02/04 post were totally insane off-the-top conclusions. Why don't you go back and re-read the nonsense you posted, and then tell me how rational and sensible those conclusions really were. Spare me your innocent illusions about the 50s during your upbringing in the San Fernando Valley. I lived in Canoga Park from 1957 through 1963, so we actually shared some of the same time and place.

Techno...thanks for the good laugh, that's good stuff....where did you get it ? MAD Magazine?

Boggsy, Time for some remedial sensitivity training for you my lad. I can't believe you found any humor in Techno's post. Don't you see he's filled with hate? You need to spend some time with the two previous posters so that your eyes can be opened to sheer awfulness that is life on this racist, sexist, bigoted, disease ridden, pollution filled planet.

Mac, you are a very bright guy, but in my estimation, Einstein was even more bright than you. He believed in a creator.

There is room for creationism and prayer in the classroom. It gives kids a feeling of purpose and comfort. This does not conflict with hard science in any way. In fact a brilliant physicist explained it best. From our perspective the earth evolved over billions of years. But from Gods perspective, it took only 7 days. Why? Because as physicists have noted, the expansion of the universe at the big bang was at or above the speed of light. From the center of the universe one would perceive only 7 days have past. But from our perspective it's been billions of years.

I did go back are read it again, and your are right, most of the 2012 responses are over the top, buy not all that much. Yes, they are overstated, but the point is valid. Political correctness and responses to what used to be benign events are now national news with over reaction being the norm, in my opinion. It is the way it is and I accept it, but I don't have to agree with it.

To deny that things aren't radically different now than they were in the 50's is just silly.

And for you liberals, there are a few things that I do support on the liberal side, but I don't usually discuss them on the forum. Everything isn't just black or white as many of you portray.

Techno...thanks for the good laugh, that's good stuff....where did you get it ? MAD Magazine?

Boggsy, Time for some remedial sensitivity training for you my lad. I can't believe you found any humor in Techno's post. Don't you see he's filled with hate? You need to spend some time with the two previous posters so that your eyes can be opened to sheer awfulness that is life on this racist, sexist, bigoted, disease ridden, pollution filled planet.

Mr.G...quite frankly I'm surprised you have a sense of humor after the RGIII knee explosion. You know me, I think anger and revenge is the death of the soul. I do agree with the theme of Techno's post, but the content is so dopey I had to make the Alfred E. Newmann comparison.

... creationism and prayer in the classroom. It gives kids a feeling of purpose and comfort.

I started to add that it does the same for many adults of all ages so what's the harm, but those last three words would ignore world history and current events. Thus I'll confine the comfort benefit to the individual and forget about the thousands of wars religion has triggered. Oops, that fails, too; is there one happy, "comfortable" jihadist, or antisemite, or true racist or bigot, or atheist activist, etc., on the planet?

Bard--with all due respect, you have no clue as to what my spiritual or religious views are. Making this nonsense; the law makes it unconstitutional nonsense:

Quote:

Einstein was even more bright than you. He believed in a creator.

There is room for creationism and prayer in the classroom. It gives kids a feeling of purpose and comfort. This does not conflict with hard science in any way.

The only mention of religion in the Constitution is a specific prohibition against there being any religious tests for holding Federal offices. The Bill of Rights is where religious freedom is guaranteed. That means, if you actually think it through, that each and every one of us in acting in our public lives in government funded activities, is free from the religious views of others. There are devout believers of many different religions present in our public life, even discounting magic underpants and Christ being present in the desert in Utah, or the more bizarre aspects of Scientology.

The places where religion gives comfort and a sense of purpose is in one's church and home. Not in school. I could cite multiple Supreme Court decisions which make that clear--but then you evangelical types don't believe in the Constitutional structure where the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of legal disputes.

By the way, I was raised Roman Catholic, and served as an altar boy. I was never abused by a priest, perhaps because I was a big kid. But I met Mother Superior's who were sick twisted bitches. Comfort indeed. If you haven't seen the HBO special on the deaf kids abused by a priest, you need to. I will absolutely admit to substantial distrust of organized religions. The sad history of the Catholic church--especially during our idyllic 1950's, is that they did everything they could to protect the myth that priests were the embodiment of Christ. They did almost nothing to protect children.

Mac, you are a very bright guy, but in my estimation, Einstein was even more bright than you. He believed in a creator.

There is room for creationism and prayer in the classroom. It gives kids a feeling of purpose and comfort. This does not conflict with hard science in any way. In fact a brilliant physicist explained it best. From our perspective the earth evolved over billions of years. But from Gods perspective, it took only 7 days. Why? Because as physicists have noted, the expansion of the universe at the big bang was at or above the speed of light. From the center of the universe one would perceive only 7 days have past. But from our perspective it's been billions of years.

There is room to explore scientifically the big bang theory or any theory of how the multiverse came to be, and also how different religions tell the tale of creation or other origin stories. However, one is science and the other only available in a comparative religion class or social studies class examining the same topic from different religious perspectives, lest it be a violation of the Establishment Clause prohibition against proselytizing in the classroom. That a certain religious claim does not conflict with hard science in no way causes the claim to loose its religious origin. It remains religious precisely because it will not be debunked by science. One is based on faith and belief without objective proof, the other casts aside ideas using an entirely different method. Religion is the former, science the latter.

Mandated prayer in school works nearly the same way. By choosing a prayer, you conversely deselect another. Many people wish for each day to begin with the Lord's Prayer. I must ask the question, which one? Several iterations of the Christian Lord's Prayer are utilized in the USA and each group or church that picks one over the other does so for theological reasons. What about those children who believe something entirely different, or choose to believe nothing at all? The Establishment Clause exists for a reason, and to repeatedly drone on about needing prayer in school as well as the need to teach creationism, you seem unwilling to recognize the third, co-equal judicial branch and its jurisprudence on the subject.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum